Snow Slide Protection with

Rockfall Barriers

Interaction of flexible rockfall barriers with avalanches

and snow pressure

Technical documentation / April 2008

Rockfall barriers / technical documentation / April 2008

Interaction of flexible rockfall barriers

with avalanches and snow pressure

S. Margreth WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Snow

and Avalanche Research SLF,
Davos, Switzerland
margreth@slf.ch

A. Roth Geobrugg AG, Protection Systems

Romanshorn, Switzerland
andrea.roth@geobrugg.com

ABSTRACT

Rockfall barriers are optimized to absorb high punctual impact energies. In

mountain areas the barriers are also loaded by avalanches and snow pres-
sure. Snowpack forces and dynamic avalanche pressures act over a much
larger area and over longer time periods. Thus, if not properly designed,
rockfall barriers can be damaged. In winter 20032006 we investigated the
interaction of flexible rockfall barriers with avalanches and snow pressure
in a study site in Fieberbrunn, Austria and in other areas. In several locations
the barriers successfully stopped small wet snow avalanches. However the
main problem turned out to be the insufficient retention capacity during
the whole winter and the structural behaviour. The weakest points are the
retaining ropes and the post foundations. For an appropriate design of the
barrier the main input factors determining snow pressure and avalanche
pressure have to be assessed.

INTRODUCTION

In the last 10 years the behaviour of rockfall barriers was studied with full
scale tests. The result of these tests was an optimized generation of flexible
ring net barriers which absorb impact energies of up to 5000 kJ. The energy
is mainly dissipated by the ring net and brake devices (Gerber, 2003). Flex-
ible barriers are widely applied to protect settlements and traffic lines from
rockfall. However, in mountain areas with an abundant snowpack, the flex-
ible barriers are also loaded by avalanches and snow pressure. A rockfall
event produces a large dynamic load on a relatively small barrier area. The
interaction of the snowpack and avalanches with the barriers is very differ-
ent. Snowpack forces and dynamic avalanche pressures act over a much
larger area and over longer time periods. Thus, if not properly designed,
rockfall barriers can be damaged. After the successful application of flexible
barriers to stop and retain debris flows (Roth, 2004), first trials were made
to stop small avalanches. To obtain a better understanding of the interaction
and performance of rockfall barriers with snow pressure and avalanches,
case studies were performed in Switzerland, Germany and Austria. We sum-
marize the data and experiences obtained.
2
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY SITE IN FIEBERBRUNN

In the ski resort Fieberbrunn in the Kitzbhler Alps (Austria) the 460 m long
ski way Jgersteig has to be closed during longer time periods every win-
ter because of avalanche hazard. The ski way is situated below a 180 m long
and more than 40 inclined slope at an elevation of 1310 m a.s.l. (Fig. 1). The
slope is partly covered with deciduous trees. After each snow fall period
avalanches are released artificially by explosives. The main concern is warm-
ing periods and the consequent release of wet snow avalanches which are
much more difficult to control. At the elevation of the starting zone the 100
year snow height is estimated to 360 cm and the mean yearly new snow sum
to 620 cm. A protection project with several lines of snow supporting struc-
tures was established to reduce the avalanche risk. Because of the high cost
alternative protection measures in form of rock fall barriers were proposed.
The rock fall barriers stop the avalanching snow masses. It was decided to
investigate at first the suitability of rock fall barriers to stop small avalanch-
es in a research project funded by the Centre for natural hazard management
alpS. The main goals were to study the behaviour of the structures and to
optimise their resistance against snow pressure and avalanche impacts.

Fig. 1: Overview study-site in

Fieberbrunn

In 2002 a 20 m (termed A) and a 15 m long barrier (termed B) of the system

FATZER AG Geobrugg with heights of 5 m were built in the most frequent
avalanche zones 30 m above the ski way (Fig. 2). The posts and ground plates
correspond to a 3000 kJ barrier and the rope assembly to a 2000 kJ barrier
with an additional down slope rope. The post spacing of the barrier was
reduced from 10 m to 5 m. Because of the areal load a weaker ring net was
chosen. The barriers were closely monitored during winter with recording of
the snow distribution, the snow heights with probing, the snow density and
the geometry of the system by measuring the inclinations and deformation
of the main structural elements. Snow data were collected daily at the near-
by observation field Kogel at 1600 m a.s.l. and in Fieberbrunn (780 m a.
s.l.). The avalanche activity was surveyed by ski patrollers.
3
Rockfall barriers / technical documentation / April 2008

METEOROLOGICAL AND AVALANCHE SITUATION

DURING THE 4 TEST WINTERS IN FIEBERBRUNN

In the winters 2003 and 2006 the snowheights were slightly above average
(Tab. 1). The first test winter had the smallest snow pack and was not very
valuable for an evaluation. During the last 2 winters however large snow
heights were recorded. The new snow sum of winter 2006 had a return
period of estimably 10 years. In every winter more than 11 avalanche days
were counted. Most of the avalanches hit the barriers. In winter 2004 the
ski way was closed on 56 days because of avalanche hazard. We summarize
that the last 3 winters were valuable for a test of the barriers.
Tab. 1. Snow data, avalanche activity
and closure days

Winter Fieberbrunn Kogel Avalanche activity Closure of the ski way

(780 m a.s.l.) (1600 m a.s.l.) Jgersteig

Max. snow New snow New snow Number of days Number of days Number of Number of
height sum sum with artificial with natural closure days open days
release release
02/03 105 cm 327 cm 489 cm 7 4 20 90
03/04 110 cm 498 cm 650 cm 11 2 56 69
04/05 165 cm 523 cm 615 cm 13 1 33 96
05/06 125 cm 643 cm 922 cm 17 5 48 84
Mean value
of 92 winters 109 cm 436 cm - - - - -

RESULTS FROM THE STUDY SITE IN FIEBERBRUNN

Retention capacity
In winter 2004 and 2006 both barriers were for the most part filled to the
top with avalanche deposits (Fig. 3 and 4). The highest deposits were always
observed in sections where the avalanche flow was slightly canalized. In both
winters barrier A was already filled at the end of January. All subsequent
avalanches overflowed the net. The snow height distribution behind post 3
of barrier A is given in Fig. 5. If completely filled the influence of the net ends
after a distance of 10 to 15 m in upslope direction. The snow height behind
the barrier was 2 to 4 times higher compared to the undisturbed area beside
the barriers. The maximal deposit volume behind the 5 m high barrier was
38 m3 per meter barrier length. With a barrier length of 20 m the total amount
of stopped snow would be 760 m3. This volume is very similar to observations
where barriers were hit by debris flow (Roth, 2004). The average densities
of the deposited snow were with 410 to 507 kg m -3 rather high. This corre-
sponds to a densification of the new snow by a factor of 3 to 4 if a new snow
density of 120 kg m -3 is assumed. The surface inclination of the banked-up
snow behind the completely filled barrier varied between 12 and 20 meas-
ured over a distance of 8 m. The terrain inclination is around 40. Frutiger
(1965) investigated the behaviour of avalanches in areas controlled by sup-
porting structures. According to his observations the inclination of the
banked-up snow behind the structures varied between 19 and 30.
4
Fig. 2: Ring net barrier A,
study-site at Fieberbrunn

Fig. 3: Barrier A on April 4th 2004

Fig. 4: Barrier A on April 15th 2004

5
Rockfall barriers / technical documentation / April 2008

In winter 2006 a 5 m wide section of barrier A was not covered with a wire
netting having a mesh opening of 50 mm. In this section the retaining capac-
ity of the ring net was much reduced. The diameter of the wire rings is 30
cm. On 20 March 2006 the snow height was in this section about 1.5 m less
compared to the neighbouring section with a 50 mm mesh cover. This ob-
servation corresponds to former experiences (Margreth, 1996).

The retention capacity of a barrier is crucial for providing a sufficient safety

against avalanches. However the total avalanche volume during the whole
winter was in Fieberbrunn much higher than the retention capacity. The
potential avalanche volume of a whole winter depends mainly on the new
snow sum SHN for the whole winter or a time period in the starting zone,
the snow densification, the length of the potential starting zone Lhor, the
avalanche activity, the terrain roughness and the topography of the ava-
lanche track. The total condensed avalanche volume Va which has to be
stopped by the barrier can be estimated as follows (1):

( HN Lhor)
Va = [m3 m -1]
K

The factor K describes the relation between the potential avalanche volume
and the avalanche volume stopped by the barrier. The factor K depends
mainly on the densification of the new snow and the local conditions (terrain
roughness, topography, artificial triggering, snow stability). For the study
site we determined for 5 dates the maximal volume stopped by the barrier
and calculated the potential avalanche volume (Tab. 2). We used the new
snow sum until to the observation date measured at Kogel and a horizon-
tal length Lhor of 130 m. The corresponding factor K varies in a wide range
between 16 and 52. For design purposes we would propose for Fieberbrunn
a factor K of 10 which includes a certain safety. This factor is regarded to be
rather high because of the high avalanche activity, the steep avalanche track
and the low terrain roughness. With formula (1) the necessary retaining
capacity can be determined. That a barrier can stop an avalanche com-
pletely also the run-up height of the snow masses during the impact has to
be considered.

Tab. 2. Comparison of the measured

condensed avalanche volume with the
potential avalanche volume in Fieber-
brunn

Date of section with max. measured condensed new snow sum potential avalanche Factor K
observation snowheight avalanche volume Va measured at Kogel volume Vp=SHN Lhor

28.3.2003 partly filled at post 3-4 10 m3 m -1 369 cm 480 m3 m -1 48

3 -1
20.2.2004 filled at post 3 34 m m 410 cm 533 m3 m -1 16
3 -1 3 -1
4.4.2005 partly filled at post 3-4 14 m m 555 cm 722 m m 52
12.1.2006 filled at post 4 28 m3 m -1 430 cm 559 m3 m -1 20
3 -1 3 -1
20.3.06 overfilled at post 4 38 m m 825 cm 1073 m m 28

6
Barrier loading
The loading of the barrier due to avalanche impacts and snow pressure could
be determined by analysing the deformation of brake rings of the barrier
(Fig. 2). Brake rings are fundamental energy absorbing devices in rockfall
barriers. They are integrated in the support ropes and retaining ropes. The
tension force in the ropes is given according to the elongation of the brake
elements. The support ropes are alternating fixed to the post with wire rope
clips which function as rated break point. The load distribution and static
model applied for the back calculation of the avalanche impact and snow
pressure is given in Figure 6. Fig. 5: Measured snow heights in the 4
test winters behind post 3 at barrier A

Avalanche impact
The perpendicular impact pressure from a dense fl ow avalanche on a large
rigid obstacle can be calculated by (2): pN = . v2

where pN is the pressure in N m -2 perpendicular to the impacted surface, r is

the avalanche flow density in kg m-3 and v is the avalanche velocity in ms-1. A
flow density of 300 kg m -3 is applied. The total influence height on the ring
net barrier is calculated according to (3): v2
dtot = d +
2g

in which dtot is the total influence height in m, d is the original avalanche

flow depth in m and v2 /2g is the run-up height in m, where v is the avalanche
velocity in m s-1, is an empirical factor taking into account the loss of mo-
mentum during the impact and g is the acceleration of gravity. For light, dry
snow avalanches is chosen to be 1.5 and for dense flow avalanches between
2 and 3 (Salm, 1990).

For the back calculations we applied 2.5. The pressure is assumed to be con-
stant over the flow depth d and from the top of the flow to the total influence
height decreasing linearly to zero (Fig. 6). The back calculated avalanche
pressures are a lower bound because the calculation model did not consider
the energy absorption of the net when the avalanche hits the barrier.

Fig. 6: Rockfall barrier with load

distribution of avalanche impact and
snow pressure

7
Rockfall barriers / technical documentation / April 2008

At post 4 in February 2004 the wire rope clips with a failure load of 116 kN
were broken. However the brake elements of the retaining ropes with a
release force of 140 kN were not activated. The broken wire rope clip gives
a lower and the not activated brake ring an upper bound of the avalanche
impact. The maximal avalanche pressure was estimated to be between 31
kN m -2 and 38 kN m -2 calculated with an avalanche speed of around 11 m s -1,
a flow depth of 0.5 m and a thickness of the snow pack of 1.5 m.

In winter 2006 weaker brake rings with a lower release force were installed.
At the end of march a wet snow avalanche hit the section between post 1
and 2. Three brake rings of the retaining ropes were activated. The maximal
tension force was 100 kN in the retaining rope respectively 140 kN a the
upper anchor. The maximal avalanche pressure was around 55 kN m -2 with
an avalanche speed of 13.5 m s-1, a flow depth of 0.5 m and a thickness of
the snow pack of 1.5 m.

Snow pressure
The theory of snow pressure calculations was mainly developed in regard to
the design of snow supporting structures in the starting zone of avalanches.
The resultant snow pressure in the line of slope SN per unit length across the
slope on a rigid wall is formulated in the technical guideline (Margreth, 2006)
as follows (4): H2
SN = g KN [kNm -1]
2

In Equation (4), is the average snow density (to m -3 ), g is the acceleration

due to gravity (m s-2) and H is the vertical snow height (m). The gliding fac-
tor N was empirically classified in the technical guideline according to field-
tests with respect to ground roughness and slope exposition. K is the creep-
factor which depends on the snow density r (to m -3 ) and the slope angle
(). The snow pressure is evenly distributed over the height of the snow pack
(Fig. 6). We suppose that the reduction of the snow pressure by the flexibil-
ity of the net is compensated by the weight of the sack formed by the bulg-
ing ring net which is not considered in the calculation.

We assume that the maximal snow pressure was in winter 2004 when at post
4 a mean snow height of 4.8 m and a snow density of 450 kg m -3 were meas-
ured. The brake elements of the retaining ropes with a release force of 140
kN were not activated. The maximal snow pressure was smaller than 88.5
kN m -1 whereas the creep factor k was 0.85 and the glide factor N was
smaller than 2.0.

We think that the avalanche pressure was in the 4 test winters larger than
the snow pressure and determining for the loading. The snowpack behind
the barrier consisted mainly of avalanche deposits. We suppose that creep
and glide of an avalanche deposit is much reduced compared to an undis-
turbed snow pack.

8
Structural behaviour
In winter 2004 brake rings of the lower support ropes were activated and
wire rope clips were broken which function as rated break point and fix the
support ropes to the posts. The loading of the lower support rope was high-
er compared to the upper support rope. Because of the broken wire rope
clips the effective height of the barrier was reduced by 1.65 m and conse-
quently the bulge of the completely filled ring net was up to 2.5 m (Fig. 4).
Due to the loading of the barrier the post turns by 1 to 5 in up slope direc-
tion and the retaining rope is displaced downward. The overturn of the posts
in upslope direction is unproblematic. The high vertical and transverse loads
deformed the ground plates and anchors of the post foundation. The strength
of the groundplate and the load transmission to the anchors was insufficient.
The vertical loads due to snow pressure seem to be higher compared to
rockfall. In winter 2005 a wire rope anchor of the lateral fixation of the up-
per support rope was pulled out. Due to the failed anchor the 2 outer posts
were slanted by maximally 20 however the stability of the whole barrier was
not critical at all. In summer 2005 the 2 barriers were completely readjusted.
All foundations were reinforced with a concrete base and the support ropes
were directly fixed to the ground plate respectively to the post head without
a rated break point. Winter 2006 demonstrated that the readjusted barriers
withstood high avalanche and snow pressure loads without any damages,
further the deformation of the net was much smaller compared to winter
2004. The bulge of the completely filled net was 1.40 m and the sag of the
upper support rope was maximally 0.55 m.

RESULTS OF CASE STUDIES

Winter 2006 was in central and northern Austria very rich in snow. On the
one side the new snow sums were very high and on the other side warming
periods were missing. We investigated rockfall barriers in the area of Atter-
see which were hit by wet snow avalanches in February 2006:

Attersee, site 1:
A rockfall barrier consisting of 7 posts is situated below a 40 m high cliff in
a 200 m long and 60 inclined avalanche path. The 4 m high barrier Geobrugg
RX-150 with a post spacing of 9 m was dimensioned on a rockfall impact
energy of 1500 kJ. 4 sections of the barrier were completely filled by two
wet snow avalanches (Fig. 7). Most of the avalanching snow overtopped the
barrier and caused damages to the barriers situated downslope. The later
inspection of the snow free barrier showed that most of the brake rings in
the retaining ropes responded between 35% and 65%, whereas 2 brake
elements in the lower support ropes responded to a maximum of less than
5% only. The maximal tension force in the upslope anchor was around 115
kN. The residual deflection of the ring net was maximally 2.2 m and is caused
mainly because of broken rated break points (Fig. 8). Due to the high verti-
cal loads in the posts some base plates were deformed and 1 anchor bar was
broken. Back calculations resulted in an avalanche velocity of minimally 10
m s-1 with a flow depth of 0.3 m. The corresponding avalanche pressure was
at least 30 kN m -2. The main parts of the barrier as ring nets or posts could
be re-used for the repair.

9
Rockfall barriers / technical documentation / April 2008
Fig. 10: Rockfall barrier at site 2,
Attersee. Snow distribution on
22.3.2006
10
Attersee, site 2:
Two 9 m long sections of a 1500 kJ rockfall barrier were completely filled by
a wet snow avalanche (Fig. 9). Only minor snow masses overtopped the 4 m
high barrier Geobrugg RX-150. The small avalanche path has over a distance
of 125 m an inclination of 47. At the barrier site the slope inclination is 35.
The surface inclination of the banked-up snow was 33 measured over a
distance of 11 m (Fig. 10). The mean height of the stopped snow behind the
barrier was 3.6 m and the density was with 480 kg m -3 rather high. The catch-
ing capacity of the barrier was around 40 m3 m -1. The later inspection of the
snow free barrier showed that the brake rings in the retaining ropes of 3
posts responded between 4 % and 43 % which corresponds to a maximal
tension force in the upslope anchor of around 60 kN. The brake elements in
the support ropes did not respond. The maximal bulge of the ring net was
145 cm. The avalanche impact was with a velocity of minimally 8.5 m s -1 and
a flow depth of 0.3 m at least 22 kN m -2. No repair work was necessary.
The observations of winter 2005/06 confirmed the experiences gained in
the test site in Fieberbrunn. In several locations small wet snow avalanches
with avalanche velocities smaller than 9 m s-1 were stopped by rockfall bar-
riers with no or very small damages. In most of the studied barriers the
determining loading was caused by avalanches and not snow pressure. The
weakest point was the strength of the brake elements in the retaining ropes.
In a few cases rock fall barriers collapsed mainly because of broken retaining
ropes or failed upslope or lateral anchors. Damaged posts or ring nets were
never observed.
DESIGN PROCEDURE
Based on our findings a design procedure for an optimized application of
rockfall barriers in areas exposed to avalanches and snow pressure was de-
veloped (Fig. 11). The main goal is to compare the rockfall load with the
avalanche and snow pressure and to choose the barrier type and dimensions
respectively. The procedure includes the following steps:
a) Preselection of rockfall barrier
The key parameters for the selection of a rockfall barrier type are the ki-
netic energy and the bounce height of a rockfall event. The distribution
along the slope profile of both parameters can be obtained with rockfall
simulation.
b) Avalanche and snow pressure hazard evaluation
In a next step the avalanche and snow pressure hazard at the barrier location
must be assessed. In the alps avalanches break loose typically on slopes steep-
er than 30 and at altitudes higher than about 500 m a.s.l. On slopes steeper
than 40 they are much more frequent than on slopes less inclined than 35.
If the height difference from the upper end of the release area to the bar-
rier location is less than about 15-20 m or if the angle between the upper
end of the release area and the barrier location is smaller than 25 the ava-
lanche hazard is negligible. Barrier locations in depression with a confined
avalanche flow and a low ground roughness are unfavourable. Very valuable
for the hazard assessment are information on former avalanche events.
Fig. 7: Rockfall barrier at 1,
Attersee 17.3.2006.
(Photo by Geobrugg)

Fig. 8: Rockfall barrier at site 1,

Attersee 7.6.2006

Fig. 9: Rockfall barrier at site 2,

Attersee 22.3.2006

11
Rockfall barriers / technical documentation / April 2008
Fig. 12: Total tension force T at the
upper anchor of a rockfall barrier
(structure height 4 m, post spacing 9
m). Comparison of avalanche impact
(snow density 300 kg/m3, snow height
1.0 m) with rockfall impact (energy).
Fig. 13: Comparison of snow pressure
(snow density 300 kg/m3, slope
inclination 40) with rockfall impact
(energy). Total tension force T at the
upper anchor of a rockfall barrier
(structure height 4 m, post spacing 9 m)
in relation of snow depth D and glide
factor N.
12
Snow pressure can generally be neglected if the extreme snow depth at the
barrier location is smaller than 1.0 m or if the slope inclination is less than
25. Smooth and even terrain with snow heights larger than about 2.5 m
and inclinations between 35 and 45 is unfavourable. Snow pressure is much
reduced if the barrier is located at the edge of a terrace.
c) Quantification of avalanche and snow pressure
The avalanche and snow pressure loads are quantified. For the calculation
of the avalanche pressure the flow velocity, the snow density, the flow width
and the flow depth have to be assessed at best with simulation models as
AVAL-1D (Christen, 2002). Especially the velocity and the flow width can
cause high areal loads.
The snow pressure, which depends mainly on the snow depth and the glide
factor, can be calculated according to the technical guideline for avalanche
defense structures in the starting zone (Margreth, 2006).
d) Comparison of the system and foundation forces
The system and foundation forces of certified rockfall barriers are rela-
tively well known. The forces are measured during the full scale certification
test (Gerber, 2003). The reaction forces in the main structural elements due
to avalanches and snow pressure can be estimated by replacing the dy-
namic with a static loading. The tension force in the retaining rope is calcu-
lated for avalanche and snow pressure loading and compared with the ten-
sion forces measured in the certification test for different barrier types (Fig.
12 and 13). The comparison shows that the tension force at the upper anchor
of a standard 1000 kJ barrier is equalled if the avalanche velocity is around
8 m s-1 with a flow depth of 1.0 m respectively if the snow depth is 3.0 m
with a glide factor N of 2.5.
e) Selection of rockfall barrier
The pre-selected barrier can be installed if avalanches and snow pressure
cause smaller forces than rockfall. In areas with an abundant snow pack at-
tention should be paid to the release point of the brake elements in the
retaining ropes and the foundations of the posts. If avalanches or snow
pressure cause higher forces than rockfall the barrier system must be adapt-
ed. Stronger structural members, a reduced post spacing, replacement of
rated break points and foundations of the supports reinforced with a con-
crete base should be chosen. However if avalanches cause much higher
forces on a barrier than rockfall alternate mitigation measures such as rock-
filled dams may be necessary.
 Fig. 13: Procedure for an optimized
application fo rockfall barriers in areas
exposed to avalanchee and snow
pressure

CONCLUSIONS

The interaction of flexible ring net rockfall barriers with avalanches and
snow pressures was studied during 4 winters. Based on our findings a design
procedure for an optimized application of rockfall barriers in areas exposed
to avalanches and snow pressure was developed. The main goal is to compare
the rockfall load with the avalanche and snow pressure and to chose the
barrier type and dimensions respectively.

In several locations small wet snow avalanches were stopped successfully.

However the main problem turned out to be the insufficient retention ca-
pacity during the whole winter and the structural behaviour. If rockfall
barriers are applied to stop small avalanches then the structure height should
be determined on the base of a mass balance analysis between potential
starting zone and catching capacity. At the study site in Fieberbrunn the
maximal catching capacity was 38 m3 m -1.

Most of the damages to the barriers investigated in our studies were caused
by avalanches. The weakest points are the retaining ropes and the post
foundations. That a rockfall barrier can withstand the impacts from ava-
lanches and snow pressure the system must be adapted. For an appropriate
reinforcement the main input factors determining snow pressure (snow
height, glide factor) and avalanche pressure (velocity, density, flow depth)
have to be assessed. The most important points in regard of the interaction
of avalanches and snow pressure with a ring net barrier in comparison to
rockfall are:

Stronger brake rings especially for the retaining ropes

It is favourable to have the retaining ropes in direction of the slope
Fixation of the support ropes directly to the posts without
rated breakpoints

13
Rockfall barriers / technical documentation / April 2008

Brake rings in the support ropes within the sections are not necessary
Reinforcement of micropile and anchor foundations with a concrete base
If no concrete base can be applied, a larger base plate has
to be considered
Smaller spacing of posts

The back calculations in this paper were made with a simple static model.
This approach is especially for an avalanche impact on a highly flexible ring
net dissatisfying. More research has to be done on this subject. It is planned
to simulate the behaviour of flexible barriers under the dynamic areal loads
of avalanches with the simulation program FARO (Volkwein, 2005), origi-
nally developed to simulate rockfall impacts. Than result we expect more
precise information on the internal forces of the barrier which allows to
design the structural member more precisely. However the prediction of the
main input parameters describing snow pressure and avalanche impact is
still difficult and requires experience.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wishes to acknowledge the Centre for natural hazard manage-
ment alpS which provided financial support for this work. We thank Chris-
tina Rnnau and the ski resort of Fieberbrunn for the collaboration in this
research project.

14
REFERENCES

Christen, M., Bartelt, P. & Gruber, U. 2002. AVAL-1D: An avalanche dynamics program for the
practice. Proceedings of the International Congress Interpraevent 2002 in the Pacifi c Rim, 14-18
October 2002, Matsumoto, Japan. Vol. 2, pp. 715-725

Frutiger, H., 1965. Behaviour of avalanches in areas controlled by supporting structures. In: I.
A.S.H. publication no. 69. 243-250.

Gerber, W.; Bll, A.; Ammann, W.J., 2003. Flexible Rockfall Barriers - Testing and Standardisation
Experiences in Switzerland. - In: Culligan, P.J.; Einstein, H.H.; Whittle, A.J. (eds) Soil and Rock
America 2003. 12th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
June 22-26, 2003. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Proceedings Vol. 2. Essen, Verlag Glckauf.
2595-2602.

Margreth, S., 2006. Technical guideline for defense structures in avalanche starting zones. Fed-
eral office for the Environment, Bern; WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Re-
search, Davos. In press.

Margreth, S., 1996. Experiences on the use and the effectiveness of permanent supporting
structures in Switzerland, Proc. of the International Snow Science Workshop, Banff.

Roth, A., Wartmann, S., Kstli, A., 2004. Debris flow mitigation by means of fl exible barriers.
Interpraevent, Riva del Garda, Italy.

Salm, B., A. Burkard and H. Gubler. 1990. Berechnung von Flieslawinen: eine anleitung fr Prak-
tiker mit Beispielen. Eidg. Inst. fr Schnee- und Lawinenforsch. Mitt. 47.

Volkwein A., 2005. Numerical simulation of fl exible rockfall protection systems, Proc. Computing
in civil engineering, ASCE Cancun, 2005.

15
 Rockfall barriers

Rockfall drapes

Slope stabilization systems

Debris flow barriers

Avalanche prevention structures

Open pit rockfall barriers

Special applications

Geobrugg protects people and infrastructures from the

forces of nature

It is the task of our engineers and partners to analyze the problem

together with you in detail and then, together with local consul-
tants, to present solutions. Painstaking planning is not the only
thing you can expect from us, however; since we have our own
production plants on three continents, we can offer not only short
delivery paths and times, but also optimal local customer service.
With a view towards a trouble-free execution, we deliver preas-
sembled and clearly identified system components right to the cons-
truction site. There we provide support, if desired, including tech-
nical support from installation right on up until acceptance of the
structure.

Geobrugg AG
1.404.03.EN.0804

Protection Systems
Aachstrasse 11 CH-8590 Romanshorn Switzerland
Phone +41 71 466 81 55 Fax +41 71 466 81 50
www.geobrugg.com info@geobrugg.com

A company of the BRUGG Group ISO 9001 certified